Summary

A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.

Creditors’ Case

Summary

Clarification on when the court should lift the administration moratorium in respect of litigation.

The Facts

Trustees’ Application

Trustees in bankruptcy issued an application for a declaration that a property owned by a company (the Property) was in fact owned by the bankrupt. The trustees contended that the Property had been bought from the sale proceeds of a property owned by the bankrupt’s father, but expressly held on trust for the bankrupt (the Trust Property).

The Facts

Summary

The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.

The Facts

The Facts

Husband and wife petitioned for divorce in 2008. In January 2009, a statutory demand was served on the husband and a bankruptcy petition was presented in March 2009. In June 2009, husband and wife agreed a consent order whereby the husband was to make periodical payments to the wife and daughter and to repay around £1.4m to the wife.

The Facts

An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.

The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.

Summary

The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.

The Facts

Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.

The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.

Summary

Court of Appeal has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be compelled to draw down pension rights for the benefit of creditors.

Facts

Following the supportive High Court decision in the case of Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 900 (Ch), the trustee in bankruptcy in this case applied for an order compelling a discharged bankrupt to draw down his pension rights for the benefit of his creditors.

Summary

This is the latest case in the long running saga of attempts to make Mr Maud bankrupt.

Facts

The saga centres around a high value property complex in Spain. Mr Maud and objecting creditors contended on his appeal against a bankruptcy order made by the Registrar against him that the reason why the petitioners sought a bankruptcy order was for the ulterior motive of taking control of the property structure and that the order should be overturned.

The Facts

The applicants were judgment creditors of a Robert Williams (Robert). They obtained a charging order against Roberts’s beneficial interest in 75% of the shares in a company in administration and eventually became full legal owners of those shares.